1205a
Consultation Decision
Analytic Protocol
(DAP) to guide the
assessment of a
review of Medicarefunded wrist surgery
services
September 2012
Table of Contents
MSAC and PASC ........................................................................................................................ 3
Purpose of this document ........................................................................................................... 3
Purpose of application ............................................................................................................. 4
Intervention ............................................................................................................................. 4
Description................................................................................................................................. 4
Fractures of the distal radius, the distal ulna and the ulna styloid .................................................. 6
Administration, dose, frequency of administration, duration of treatment ....................................... 7
Co-administered interventions ..................................................................................................... 8
Background .............................................................................................................................. 9
Current arrangements for public reimbursement........................................................................... 9
Regulatory status ..................................................................................................................... 10
Patient population ..................................................................................................................10
Proposed MBS listing ................................................................................................................ 10
Clinical place for proposed intervention ...................................................................................... 12
Clinical management algorithm ................................................................................................. 13
Comparator ............................................................................................................................17
Clinical claim ..........................................................................................................................18
Outcomes and health care resources affected by introduction of proposed
intervention ..............................................................................................................19
Outcomes ................................................................................................................................ 19
Health care resources ............................................................................................................... 20
Proposed structure of economic evaluation (decision-analytic) ...........................................24
Clinical research questions for public funding: ............................................................................ 26
Clinical research questions for wrist fractures, no reduction .................................... 26
Clinical research questions for wrist fractures, closed reduction .............................. 26
Clinical research questions for wrist fractures, open reduction ................................ 27
Decision analytic diagram ......................................................................................................... 27
References .............................................................................................................................28
Appendix 1: Information from the MBS .................................................................................29
Appendix 2: Information from the AIHW ..............................................................................35
2
Items for public consultation
Items specifically identified for public consultation appear in the relevant sections of the
DAP. These are shown by way of highlighted, italic text.
MSAC and PASC
The Medical Services Advisory Committee (MSAC) is an independent expert committee appointed by
the Australian Government Health Minister to strengthen the role of evidence in health financing
decisions in Australia. MSAC advises the Commonwealth Minister for Health and Ageing on the
evidence relating to the safety, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of new and existing medical
technologies and procedures and under what circumstances public funding should be supported.
The Protocol Advisory Sub-Committee (PASC) is a standing sub-committee of MSAC. Its primary
objective is the determination of protocols to guide clinical and economic assessments of medical
interventions proposed for public funding.
Purpose of this document
This document is intended to provide a draft decision analytic protocol that will be used to guide the
assessment of an intervention for a particular population of patients. The draft protocol will be
finalised after inviting relevant stakeholders to provide input to the protocol. The final protocol will
provide the basis for the assessment of the intervention.
The protocol guiding the assessment of the health intervention has been developed using the widely
accepted “PICO” approach. The PICO approach involves a clear articulation of the following aspects of
the research question that the assessment is intended to answer:
Patients – specification of the characteristics of the patients in whom the intervention is to be
considered for use;
Intervention – specification of the proposed intervention
Comparator – specification of the therapy most likely to be replaced by the proposed
intervention
Outcomes – specification of the health outcomes and the healthcare resources likely to be
affected by the introduction of the proposed intervention
3
Purpose of application
A proposal for an application requesting a review of Medicare-funded wrist services was received from
The Australian Hand Surgery Society by the Department of Health and Ageing in January 2012.
Services for wrist fractures are currently reimbursed through the MBS via a range of items (MBS items
47360-47375). This proposal relates to a review of current wrist fracture MBS items, and a proposal
for five new items, to align Medicare-funded wrist therapeutic surgical procedures more closely with
current clinical practice. These items would be used in a broad patient population, although it is
suggested that the population to benefit most would be the younger and middle-aged who are
subject to high-energy trauma and intra-articular fracture.
This decision analytical protocol has been drafted to guide the assessment of the safety, effectiveness
and cost-effectiveness of Medicare-funded wrist services in order to inform MSAC’s decision-making
regarding public funding of the interventions. This is the first of six reviews from the Australian Hand
Society.
Intervention
Description
Figure 1: The anatomy of the wrist and hand (Diagram © Egton Medical Information Systems Ltd 2012, as
distributed at http://www.patient.co.uk/health/Scaphoid-Fracture.htm, used with permission.)
4
The wrist is a complex joint which is required to be both strong and flexible. It is composed of the
distal ends of the radius and ulna, eight carpal bones, and the proximal bases of the five metacarpal
bones (Kijima and Viegas 2009). As shown in Figure 1, there are eight carpal bones arranged in two
rows. The radiocarpal joint is the joint between the scaphoid lunate and the distal radius. The ‘wrist’
joint is a composite joint requiring complex interactions between all of the component bones. The
distal radius and ulna are covered in articular cartilage and meet at the distal radioulnar joint (DRUJ).
At the distal end of the ulna is a styloid process which provides attachment to the ulnocarpal
ligaments and the radioulnar ligaments. The stability of the wrist is dependent upon a number of
ligaments. The extrinsic ligaments connect the distal radius and ulna to the carpal bones, while the
intrinsic ligaments have their origins and insertions into the carpal bones (Kijima and Viegas 2009).
Wrist fractures are usually defined as occurring in the distal radius within three centimetres of the
radiocarpal joint, where the lower end of the radius articulates with two (the lunate and the scaphoid)
of the eight bones forming the carpus (Handoll 2008) and the distal ulna. Fractures of the ulna can
also occur. The majority of wrist injuries are closed injuries, the external skin remaining intact
(Handoll et al 2008). Wrist fractures may be intra-articular (where the articular surface is disrupted)
or extra-articular. Due to the intricate three-dimensional anatomy of the hand, and the multiple bones
and surfaces which may be involved, together with potential soft tissue injury, wrist fractures may be
complex in nature.
In the past, surgeons have classified fractures based on clinical appearance, and named after those
who first described them. Some common eponymous naming conventions include (Abraham and
Scott 2010):




Colles’ fracture: may demonstrate a dinner-fork deformity, commonly seen as a result of a fall
on an outstretched hand, involving the fracture of the distal radial metaphysis and can be
associated with a fracture of the ulnar styloid.
Smith’s (or reverse Colles’) fracture: a transverse fracture of the metaphysis of the distal
radius following a fall on the upper surface of the hand.
Barton’s fracture: a distal radius fracture with dislocation of the radiocarpal joint, usually as a
result of a high-energy impact to the radiocarpal joint.
Hutchison’s fracture: caused by a direct fall on the radial side of the wrist causing a fracture
through the radial styloid process.
The introduction of X-rays and other more detailed imaging methods has made it clear that classical
deformity can be associated with a range of fracture patterns. As a result, a range of newer
classification systems have been developed (Handoll et al 2008).
In the short-term, fractures of the wrist may be associated with swelling and pain, with possible
neurovascular complications, vasomotor instability and significant intra-articular and extra-articular
injury. Late complications include midcarpal instability (dynamic instability resulting from malaligned
bones in the midcarpal joint within the wrist) (Handoll et al 2008). Post-traumatic arthritis may occur,
months to years from the injury.
Treatment of a wrist fracture is dependent upon whether the bone fragments have become displaced.
Fracture reduction is the alignment of displaced bony fragments. The wrist may then be immobilised
5
usually in a plaster cast. The basic treatment options available for fracture repair are conservative
(non-operative), where reduction of the displaced fracture is via manipulation, and subsequent
stabilisation in a plaster cast or other external brace; or a range of operative or open techniques
(Handoll and Madhok 2008). Specifically:

closed (with traction and manipulation) or open (including arthroscopically-assisted) reduction
if the bone fragments are displaced (percutaneous Kirschner wires (K-wires) could be used to
move the bony fragments into place);

external splintage: immobilisation or support, or both (plaster of Paris cast, brace, bandage);

external fixation using percutaneous pins or wires fixed externally with plaster or use of
another external frame (as an aid to closed reduction);

percutaneous pinning;

bridging fixation (pins are placed further from the more fragile end of the fractured bone with
external component bridges and immobilises the wrist joint);

internal fixation with pins, nails, screws and plates;

internal fixation and external fixation can be applied together for stabilisation of a very
complex and unstable fracture; however, the quality of current internal fixation devices mean
this is becoming less common;

replacement of lost bone stock (metaphyseal defect) by temporary bone scaffold (bone graft)
material or any other suitable substance (bone cement or substitute);

immobilisation (approximately 6 weeks), followed by rehabilitation
Ligament injuries are common with intra-articular fractures and would need to be repaired in addition
to the fracture. In the case of articular fractures, a displacement of less than 2mm is normally treated
conservatively, whilst a dislocation of greater than 2mm is a commonly accepted indication for
surgery (Schmittenbecher 2005). Clinical judgement is required at all times. Exercises and other
physical interventions are used to help restore function and speed up recovery (Handoll et al 2006).
Fractures of the distal radius, the distal ulna and the ulna styloid
The distal radius and distal ulna are covered in articular cartilage and play a role in smooth forearm
rotation. An intra-articular fracture here requires an increased level of skill and difficulty to repair
compared to a fracture elsewhere in the radius or ulna.
The ulna styloid is not intra-articular but is part of the distal ulna and is the attachment for multiple
ligaments that support and restrain the movement of the DRUJ required for forearm stability and
forearm rotation. It also contains ligaments that help support the ulnar side of the wrist joint. Repair
of ulnar styloid fractures are very different to fractures of the distal ulna as they involve joint stability.
Where there is no instability repair of the ulna styloid is relatively straight forward and is used to
prevent pain from a non-united fracture. Repair of an ulna styloid fracture where there is instability of
the DRUJ is a much more complex issue with a longer rehabilitation equivalent to that seen with a full
reconstruction of the DRUJ.
Compared to fractures elsewhere at the radius and ulna, intra-articular fractures of the distal radius
and distal ulna require more detailed imaging, more accurate bone re-alignment and reduction, the
6
use of intra-operative radiology, and a greater requirement for internal fixation. Rehabilitation may
also be more complex.
In current clinical practice the management of undisplaced stable fractures are the same, whether
they are intra-articular or extra-articular. Therefore closed reduction and cast immobilization for intraand extra-articular fractures are very similar in practice. The main difference for intra-articular
fractures would be the addition of a CT scan to accurately assess the suitability of the fracture for
closed reduction and more frequent radiological assessment to ensure that the reduction is
maintained during the healing period.
No additional training is required for most of these fractures beyond normal continuing medical
education and attendance at clinical meetings. Newer approved implants are used for the fixation
with newer surgical techniques. A number of workshops are provided by the implant distributors with
instruction from experienced surgeons. The practice would need to have access to imaging services
such as computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and intra-operative X-ray.
Administration, dose, frequency of administration, duration of treatment
Wrist services are likely to be administered once per event due to bone damage as a result of injury
or trauma. The procedure undertaken would reflect the location and complexity of the fracture.
Simpler fractures which are non-articular could be treated with closed reduction (if required) and cast
immobilisation by general practitioners (GPs) in an out-of-hospital setting. This may be more common
in rural settings. More complex procedures, including fractures in an intra-articular location, would be
performed in the operating theatre of a specialised practice by hand or orthopaedic surgeons with a
particular expertise in the treatment of fractures of this type. This is the same as for current fracture
management. A narrative detailing the provision of a complex wrist fracture repair by a specialist
surgeon is provided below.
Prior to the fracture service delivery an initial consultation where the interview is performed assessing
the mechanism of injury, basic health issues and suitability for the proposed treatment. An initial Xray would usually be undertaken where the need for further detailed investigation is determined. This
initial consultation would take 15-20 minutes. If a CT scan were to be provided at the time of the
consultation this would allow a further assessment of the finer details of the fracture (additional 15
minutes consultation time). If a CT scan needs to be arranged at another time then an additional
consultation of 15-20 minutes will be required. Once a decision to operate has been made then the
full service is discussed including an outline of the procedure, postoperative course, possible risks and
complications and expected outcome.
Time taken for a surgical procedure has a wide variation depending on the experience of the surgeon
and the support team, the complexity of the fracture and unpredictable variables in reassembling a
complex 3 dimensional puzzle. This procedure requires hospital admission with an overnight stay,
either general or regional anaesthesia depending on the anaesthetic assessment. The procedure may
require one or two different surgical approaches with the possibility of biological or synthetic bone
grafting. The total surgical time would range from 90-120 minutes. The surgical procedure requires a
surgical exposure, either a dorsal or volar approach or separate radial or ulnar approaches or
7
combinations, with dissection of tissues to expose the bone and fracture. Vital nerves, vessels and
tendons need to be protected throughout the exposure. The fracture is identified and the joint
surface exposed without excessive soft tissue dissection which would devascularise the fragments.
Preliminary fixation may be required with temporary wire fixation or the application of an external
fixateur. This initial fixation is then checked with X-ray. Once satisfactory position is achieved then the
definitive fixation of the fracture is applied with the number and configuration of plates and screws
determined by the fracture anatomy. When the fracture is stabilised, further assessment is performed
with X-rays. At times an arthroscopic assessment of the joint surface is needed. Once the fracture is
satisfactorily stabilised, any associated ligamentous and soft tissue injuries are addressed. The wound
is closed, and dressings and splint immobilisation is applied.
Aftercare would involve a number of stages. The patient is reviewed in the immediate post-operative
period to look for possible immediate complications such as bleeding, nerve injury and compartment
syndromes (10 minutes). The patient is then reviewed in the hospital the following morning for
assessment of pain relief, any complications and suitability for discharge. The results of the procedure
are again explained to the patient along with their pain relief and what to look out for if complications
develop. Two weeks after discharge, the patient is reviewed, sutures are removed and the wound is
checked. If the fracture was deemed stable at the time of surgery then the patient would start a
program of graded mobilisation. If it was determined that further supplementary support was needed
then a splint or cast would be applied (15 – 20 minutes). Following this the patient would usually be
seen at the six week mark where X-rays would be used to determine the union of the fracture and to
assessed mobilisation. Subsequent consultation to assess progress and modify treatment and therapy
would occur over the next three months or so. The total time involved from initial meeting to
discharge excluding complications and additional non-standard treatments would be in the range of 6
- 7 hours.
Co-administered interventions
The co-administered interventions for fractures of the wrist will vary depending on the type, location
and complexity of the fracture. Simple fractures may require no, or closed, reduction, and will heal
successfully with cast immobilisation and little or no additional rehabilitation.
More complex fractures (intra-articular or comminuted fractures) will require additional intervention.
Due to the need for very accurate reconstitution of the joint surface there is an increasing use of
intra-operative radiology and image intensification. Radiology is most commonly used in the initial
imaging of a suspected fracture. In the case of a more complex fracture, more detailed imaging can
be achieved using CT, or using MRI for suspected soft tissue injury. Intra-operative X-ray is used
during the open procedure to establish correct alignment during pre- or final fixation of the bone
fragments. Peri-operative radiology may also be used for closed reduction to assess the accuracy of
the reduction once the cast is applied. At times an arthroscopic assessment of the joint surface is
needed. Physiotherapy is required for the recovery of wrist function.
8
Background
Current arrangements for public reimbursement
The current MBS item numbers cover the treatment but do not explicitly cover detail of the ulna, or of
any intra-articular fractures of the radius and ulna. They also do not cover current clinical practice
including the use of new terminology and newer fracture management techniques and technologies,
or more detailed imaging requirements. Current MBS items related to wrist surgery are shown in
Table 1. Specifically, items 47360 to 47375 cover the proposed medical service.
Currently, fracture management of the wrist can be undertaken in both public and private hospitals
and out of hospital (which attracts a 75% rebate). MBS items 47360, 47369 and to a lesser extent
47363 (reflecting cast immobilisation of the distal radius or ulna, with or without closed reduction)
have consistently been provided mainly by GPs and largely out of hospital over the past 5 years.
The age and gender distribution of the services provided under current MBS items are shown in
Appendix 1 (Figure 3 to Figure 8). For certain items (47360, 47363, 47369), the majority of the
services are provided to the 5-14 age group, with a small increase in older people aged 55 years or
greater. For item number 47375, the number of services increase with age, with the majority of
services provided to females in the 55-64 age group.
Table 1: Current MBS item descriptors for therapeutic procedures on wrist fractures
MBS item MBS listing
Number
MBS claims
(Jun 2010 –
Jul 2011)a
47360
RADIUS OR ULNA, distal end of, treatment of fracture of, by cast immobilisation, not
being a service to which item 47363 or 47366 applies
Multiple Services Rule (Anaes.) Fee: $129.40 Benefit: 75% = $97.05 85% = $110.00
13,100
47363
RADIUS OR ULNA, distal end of, treatment of fracture of, by closed reduction
Multiple Services Rule (Anaes.) Fee: $193.90 Benefit: 75% = $145.45 85% = $164.85
1,027
47366
RADIUS OR ULNA, distal end of, treatment of fracture of, by open reduction
Multiple Services Rule (Anaes.) (Assist.) Fee: $258.70 Benefit: 75% = $194.05 85% =
$219.90
180
47369
RADIUS, distal end of, treatment of Colles', Smith's or Barton's fracture of, by cast
immobilisation, not being a service to which item 47372 or 47375 applies
Multiple Services Rule (Anaes.) Fee: $166.35 Benefit: 75% = $124.80 85% = $141.40
2,335
47372
RADIUS, distal end of, treatment of Colles', Smith's or Barton's fracture, by closed
reduction
Multiple Services Rule (Anaes.) Fee: $277.10 Benefit: 75% = $207.85 85% = $235.55
1,398
47375
RADIUS, distal end of, treatment of Colles', Smith's or Barton's fracture of, by open
reduction
Multiple Services Rule (Anaes.) (Assist.) Fee: $369.55 Benefit: 75% = $277.20
2,857
MBS: Medicare Benefits Schedule
a Claims data retrieved June 26 2012 from: https://www.medicareaustralia.gov.au/statistics/mbs_item.shtml
Current MBS items for bone grafting (47726 and 47729) and for wrist ligament repair or DRUJ
reconstruction (46345) are shown in Appendix 1. Depending on the extent of the injury, these items
may need to be used in addition to the items for bone fixation. However, this DAP is focussed on the
fracture repair of wrist bones. Synthetic bone substitutes would be injected at the site at the time of
9
surgery and would therefore be covered within existing or proposed MBS items for bone fracture
repair.
In certain instances, removal of the implant used for fracture fixation is necessary as they can
impinge on tendon or joint movement. The current MBS item for this service is 47930.
Note that the MBS items for treating a child’s fracture of the distal radius (50508, 50512, see
Appendix 1) are not part of the proposed changes.
Regulatory status
The applicant has advised that there is no new technology associated with the proposed assessment.
The proposed medical service is a therapeutic surgical procedure. There is no designated change to
health service provision.
There are a number of varied devices and technologies which are used during the alignment, fixation
and stabilisation of bones in the wrist joint. According to the applicant the most common prostheses
currently used for distal radial and intra-articular fractures are locking plate devices. These provide
the best immediate stability, resistance against pull-out of screws and loss of fixation. Most surgical
implant companies produce sets of implants that have the same basic structure but differ only in very
slight plate modification. There is no difference between any of the plating systems on the market.
The choice of plate design used is made according to surgeon preference. According to the applicant,
all commonly available devices are TGA approved. Most implants described in the literature are
available in Australia although they may be marketed under a different name.
Currently, wires are rarely used for the treatment of wrist fractures, and external fixateurs are
similarly only used in a few special indications. Bone morphogenic proteins are not commonly used
for the treatment of fractures of the wrist, and its use is in general experimental, therefore their use
is excluded from this DAP.
Questions for the consultation:
1. Are there any devices which should not be considered a part of this proposal? For example,
should some superseded or overly complex/unregistered devices which may be in the
published literature be excluded?
2. Please provide ARTG numbers for relevant pins / wires / screws / plates / frames for external
or internal fixation.
3. Please provide ARTG numbers for relevant marketable bone graft products.
Patient population
Proposed MBS listing
The applicant proposes that five new items are needed to address specific intra-articular fractures of
the distal radius, distal ulna, and of the ulna styloid (Table 2). The proposed items, covering the
treatment of intra-articular fractures, are in addition to existing items for the treatment of distal
10
radius and ulna fractures. The use of more specific items would make the selection of item number
for the treatment of these fractures more clinically relevant and more truly reflect the clinical practice.
As a result of these new items, and to bring existing items in line with current clinical practice, the
applicant has proposed changes to the exiting MBS items and fees (Table 3). The current items for
treatment of distal radius and ulna fractures (47360, 47363, 47366, 47369, 47373, 47375) would be
streamlined, mainly through the removal of the eponymous naming conventions that relate primarily
to fracture appearance. There is no existing single item for internal fixation of an ulna styloid fracture
where there is some distal radioulnar instability. The current item’s use would be 47366 (Radius or
Ulna, distal end of, treatment of fracture) or 46345 (distal radioulnar joint, reconstruction or
stabilisation of) or possibly both numbers.
Together, the new items and changes to current item description and fees reflect services that are
provided by GPs in an out-of hospital setting, and surgical procedures that would be conducted by
specialists in a hospital setting.
Table 2: Proposed MBS item descriptors for therapeutic procedures on the wrist
MBS item
Number
MBS listing
XXXX1
RADIUS, intra-articular fracture, distal end of, with or without ulna fracture, treatment by closed reduction (Anaes.)
Fee: $312.42
XXXX2
RADIUS, intra-articular fracture, distal end of, with or without ulna fracture, treatment by open reduction and internal
fixation (Anaes.) (Assist.)
Fee: $676.92
XXXX3
ULNA, intra-articular fracture, distal end of, treatment by closed reduction (Anaes.)
Fee: $260.35
XXXX4
ULNA, intra-articular fracture, distal end of, treatment by open reduction and internal fixation (Anaes.) (Assist.)
Fee: $364.49
XXXX5
ULNA STYLOID, fracture of, associated with instability of the DRUJ, treatment of by open reduction and internal fixation,
not associated with item 46345 (Anaes.) (Assist.)
Fee: $364.49
MBS: Medicare Benefits Schedule
Table 3: Proposed changes to existing MBS item descriptors for therapeutic procedures on the wrist
MBS item
Number
MBS listing
47360
(XXXXA)
RADIUS OR ULNA, distal end of, treatment of fracture of, by cast immobilisation, other than a service to which item 47363
or 47366 applies (Anaes.)
Fee: yet to be determined
47363
(XXXXB)
RADIUS OR ULNA, distal end of, treatment of fracture of, by closed reduction (Anaes.)
Fee: yet to be determined
47366
(XXXXC)
RADIUS OR ULNA, distal end of, treatment of fracture of, not involving joint surface, by open reduction (Anaes.) (Assist.)
Fee: yet to be determined
47369
RADIUS, distal end of, treatment of Colles' or Smith's or Barton’s fracture of, not involving joint surface, by cast
immobilisation, other than a service to which item 47372 or 47375 applies (Anaes.)
Fee: $166.35
47372
RADIUS, distal end of, treatment of Colles' or Smith's or Barton’s fracture of, not involving joint surface, by closed
reduction (Anaes.)
Fee: $271.65
47375
RADIUS, distal end of, treatment of Colles' or Smith's or Barton’s fracture of, not involving joint surface, by open reduction
(H) (Anaes.) (Assist.)
Fee: $369.55
NOTE: Changes to current items shown in bold text.
MBS: Medicare Benefits Schedule
11

The fees for all the proposed items for the purposes of the assessment and economic
evaluation will be determined with the input of the ESC at a later date.

An undisplaced intra-articular fracture can be treated with cast immobilisation and no
reduction. Under the proposed items this service would be provided by XXXXA above.

The treatment of a Colles’ fracture in paediatrics is provided by separate items (50508 and
50512 Appendix 1) that are not a part of the proposed changes.
Question for consultation:
4. Why is there a proposed increase in fee for the three items (XXXA, XXXB, XXXC) which
correspond to current MBS item numbers?
5. Do the eight proposed items more accurately reflect the range of clinical indications?
6. Do the eight proposed items more accurately reflect the range of complexity of techniques?
7. Do the eight proposed items reflect the range of wrist fracture procedures currently being
undertaken across all specialties (e.g. regional surgeons, emergency physicians, general
practitioners)?
Clinical place for proposed intervention
Wrist injuries can lead to significant problems. Complications from the injury itself can result in
increased morbidity, with long-term functional impairment, pain and deformity (Handoll and Madhok
2008). In addition to soft tissue injury there can be injury to blood vessels, tendons and nerves.
Median nerve dysfunction is a common complication. One major complication is reflex sympathetic
dystrophy (RSD), also referred to as algodystrophy, Sudeck’s atrophy, complex regional pain
syndrome and shoulder-hand syndrome. Serious cases of RSD require many months of therapy to
alleviate symptoms (pain, tenderness, impairment of joint mobility, swelling, dystrophy, vasomotor
instability) (Handoll et al 2006). Late complications include midcarpal instability and post-traumatic
arthritis, which can occur several months or years after injury (Handoll and Madhok 2008). The
accurate reduction of the joint surface to anatomical alignment is essential for preservation of
function and minimisation of long-term disability.
Appendix 2 shows data from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) hospital data
cubes. In 2009-10, there were 21,796 separations by principal diagnosis of fracture at hand and wrist
level (not involving the radius and ulna), and 37,980 fractures of the forearm, including 22,887 at the
lower end of the radius and 4,432 at the lower end of both the radius and ulna. The lower end of the
ulna is not recorded separately. For the radius, 540 fractures are recorded at the lower end with volar
angulation and intra-articular fracture.
AIHW separation statistics by procedure show that in 2009-10 there were a total of 16,860 closed
reduction of a fracture of the radius. Of these, 13,892 were of the distal radius; 2,058 were of the
distal radius with internal fixation. There were a total of 10,486 open reduction of fracture of radius.
Of these, 98 were at the distal radius; 9,001 were of the distal radius with internal fixation.
12
Similar data is available for the ulna. In 2009-10, there were a total of 3,356 closed reduction of
fracture of the ulna or olecranon. Of these, 2,713 were of the distal ulna; 181 were of the distal ulna
with internal fixation. There were a total of 3,403 open reduction of fracture of the ulna or olecranon.
Of these, 65 were at the distal ulna; 1,075 were of the distal ulna with internal fixation.
Fractures of the distal radius and ulna are the most common type of fractures in patients younger
than 75 years of age (Abraham and Scott 2010). Australian epidemiological data show that among
those aged 35 and older, age-adjusted Colles’ fracture incidence (per 10,000 per year) was 17 for
females and 4 for males (Sanders et al 1999). This compared with 25 and nine respectively for hip
fracture. The rate of Colles’ fracture increased in women from 35 to the over-90 age group, but did
not increase in men except in the oldest age group (85+) (Sanders et al 1999). In a UK study, the
incidence of distal forearm fracture was 36.8/10,000 person-years in women and 9.0/10,000 personyears in men (O’Neill et al 2001).
In children, fractures of the distal radius and forearm are the most common skeletal injury requiring
surgical care (Bae 2008). Children between 5-14 years of age have been shown to have the largest
proportion (26%) of all hand and forearm fractures in the Unites States (Chung and Slipson 2001).
For younger adults, injuries to the wrist area may commonly occur as a result of sports injuries,
including throwing sports, tennis and golf (Brukner 1998). Almost 700,000 Australians (approximately
3%) are believed to have been diagnosed with osteoporosis (AIHW 2012). Fractures after minimal
trauma are a hallmark of this condition.
The applicant states that the population to benefit from fixation of intra-articular fractures would be
younger and middle-aged adults who are subject to high energy trauma. These patients are often in
their productive years and require accurate and stable fracture fixation to return them to employment
and prevent subsequent degeneration and lost productivity. The elderly require accurate and stable
fixation of their extra-articular fractures to minimise their period of incapacity and hence minimise
their reliance on respite and temporary accommodation away from home.
Epidemiological data has not been identified which shows the proportion of all patients with distal
radius and distal ulna fractures that have these fractures located in intra-articular locations, or at the
ulna styloid.
Clinical management algorithm
The clinical management algorithm for a fracture of the wrist (that is intra-articular or ulna styloid
fracture, and/or instability) is shown in Figure 2a and 2b. Figure 2a shows the current pathway
available for treatment of a wrist fracture, and Figure 2b shows the pathway including the proposed
services. The criteria required for the use of the new procedures would be the radiological evidence
of an intra-articular extension of a fracture of the distal radius or ulna and the presence of clinically
relevant instability of the DRUJ with reference to a fracture of the ulna styloid. The difference for the
new service is in the actual surgical technique, degree of difficulty, accuracy of preoperative
assessment and intensity of the postoperative management. The actual degree of difficulty will be
dependent on the clinical presentation of the fracture, and is likely to vary between patients. The
assessment of an intra-articular fracture and its characterisation is important for preoperative
13
planning to help determine the implant required and the surgical approach. Whilst plain radiographs
are adequate for an extra-articular fracture, a CT scan is usually required for accurate assessment
and planning for an intra-articular fracture.
The new services would be used in addition to the currently available interventions and MBS items.
According to the applicant, the clinical pathway for the treatment of a patient with an intra-articular
distal radius fracture would be:

Assessment by examination and plain radiology.

Referral to a specialist hand or orthopaedic surgeon.

Reassessment of the nature of the fracture and CT scanning if necessary to properly
characterise the fracture.

Surgical reconstruction of the fracture.

Postoperative review at one week, further review at two weeks to assess the reconstruction,
and regular follow-up during the healing process for three months.

Regular monitoring of wound healing, fracture union and soft tissue mobilisation with referral
to hand therapy if the mobilisation process is inadequate.

Possible removal of the fracture fixation at a later date if clinically indicated.

The new clinical pathway involves the surgical technique changes required for reconstruction
of a comminuted intra-articular fracture (that is, involving crushed or splintered bone).
Issues that have guided the structure of the current algorithms include:

An undisplaced intra-articular fracture can be treated by simple cast immobilisation. However,
these fractures are unstable and the treatment may later change to open reduction and
internal fixation.

Peri-operative imaging could be used (by a specialist) for checking the accuracy of a closed
reduction.

Ligament injuries would be dealt with separately and are not considered in the below
algorithms, or in the proposed item numbers.

An external fixateur can be used in addition to internal fixation should the additional support
be required. However, in current clinical practice the use of this combination is rare due to
the quality of current internal fixateur devices.
Question for the consultation:
8. Are the clinical algorithms appropriate?
14
Figure 2a:
Clinical management algorithm for a fracture of the wrist, with current services
Radiologically-confirmed wrist
fracture, distal end of radius or ulna
Notes:
a
with or without external fixation (wires)
b
with or without bone grafting, pins or plates
c
and/or MBS 46345 for more complex reconstruction and stabilisation
NOTE: current items do not allow
the provider to distinguish between
different complexities of wrist
fracture
Requirement of reduction
No
Yes
Colles’ Smith’s or Barton’s fracture
b
Closed reduction
Open reduction
Colles’ Smith’s or Barton’s fracture
Colles’ Smith’s or Barton’s fracture
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Immobilisation/recovery
Immobilisation/recovery
Immobilisation/recovery
Immobilisation/recovery
Immobilisation/recovery
Immobilisation/recovery
MBS 47360
Mainly provided by GPs
MBS 47369
Mainly provided by GPs
MBS 47363
Specialists; some GPs
MBS 47372
Provided by specialists
MBS 47366c
Provided by specialists
MBS 47375
Provided by specialists
Figure 2b:
Clinical management algorithm for a fracture of the wrist, with proposed service
Radiologically-confirmed wrist fracture,
distal end of radius or ulna
Notes:
a with or without K-wires, or external fixation
b with or without bone grafting, internal fixation or the
application of an external fixateur
c
Is an intra-articular fracture present?
with or without intra-operative radiology
No
Possible
Extra-articular or non-displaced
intra-articular fracture
Requirement of reduction
No
Closed
a,c
reduction
Immobilisation
/recovery
Combined 47360
and 47369 (XXXA)
Distal intra-articular radius fracture
with or without ulna facture
Yes
Immobilisation
/recovery
Combined 47363
and 47372 (XXXB)
Open
b,c
reduction
Closed
a,c
reduction
Intra-articular fracture
confirmed
CT scan
Open
b,c
reduction
Distal intra-articular ulna
fracture alone
Ulna styloid fracture with
Associated DRUJ instability
Closed
a,c
reduction
Open
b,c
reduction
Open
b,c
reduction
Immobilisation
/recovery
Immobilisation
/recovery
Immobilisation
/recovery
Immobilisation
/recovery
Immobilisation
/recovery
Immobilisation
/recovery
Combined 47366
and 47375 (XXXC)
MBS XXX1
MBS XXX2
MBS XXX3
MBS XXX4
MBS XXX5
16
Comparator
The applicant has provided the following six current MBS items as comparator procedures (Table 4).
Note that MBS data shows that a majority of services for items 47360, 47369 and to a lesser extent
47363 are performed out of hospital by GPs.
Table 4: Current MBS item descriptors for current and potential comparator procedures
MBS item MBS listing
Number
MBS claims
(Jun 2010 –
Jul 2011)a
47360
RADIUS OR ULNA, distal end of, treatment of fracture of, by cast immobilisation, not
being a service to which item 47363 or 47366 applies
Multiple Services Rule (Anaes.) Fee: $129.40 Benefit: 75% = $97.05 85% = $110.00
13,100
47363
RADIUS OR ULNA, distal end of, treatment of fracture of, by closed reduction
Multiple Services Rule (Anaes.) Fee: $193.90 Benefit: 75% = $145.45 85% = $164.85
1,027
47366
RADIUS OR ULNA, distal end of, treatment of fracture of, by open reduction
Multiple Services Rule (Anaes.) (Assist.) Fee: $258.70 Benefit: 75% = $194.05 85% =
$219.90
180
47369
RADIUS, distal end of, treatment of Colles', Smith's or Barton's fracture of, by cast
immobilisation, not being a service to which item 47372 or 47375 applies
Multiple Services Rule (Anaes.) Fee: $166.35 Benefit: 75% = $124.80 85% = $141.40
2,335
47372
RADIUS, distal end of, treatment of Colles', Smith's or Barton's fracture, by closed
reduction
Multiple Services Rule (Anaes.) Fee: $277.10 Benefit: 75% = $207.85 85% = $235.55
1,339
47375
RADIUS, distal end of, treatment of Colles', Smith's or Barton's fracture of, by open
reduction
Multiple Services Rule (Anaes.) (Assist.) Fee: $369.55 Benefit: 75% = $277.20
2,857
MBS: Medicare Benefits Schedule
a Claims data retrieved June 26 2012 from: https://www.medicareaustralia.gov.au/statistics/mbs_item.shtml
The comparator procedures do not refer to the explicit location of the fractures (that is intra-articular
and ulna styloid). Therefore they do not reflect the increase in complexity of the treatment
requirement in certain locations, which would involve the use of internal fixation and more detailed
imaging, both before and during the procedure. Overall, the comparator is likely to be a simpler
fracture repair, utilising less detailed imaging (both pre-and intra-operatively), with possibly less use
of devices for internal fixation. The comparator procedure in the presence of distal radioulnar
instability would be item 47366 and/or 46345 (distal radioulnar joint, reconstruction or stabilisation
of).
In summary there are three clinical comparator procedures:

Cast immobilisation (no reduction)

Closed reduction, cast immobilisation

Open reduction, cast immobilisation
Note: As stated by the applicant, there is no change in clinical approach between current and
proposed services. There may be more peri- and post-operative imaging; however, these items are
claimed separately to the proposed procedural services. Therefore the comparator services are
identical to the proposed services at a clinical and therapeutic level.
Questions for consultation:
9. The use of K wires to move bony fragments into place may be undertaken in closed
reduction. Is this correct, or should the use of K wires be considered only as open reduction?
10. In the same manner, would the use of external fixateur wires be considered as part of a
closed reduction?
11. Given that the proposal is to bring Medicare items in line with current clinical practice, the
DAP assumes no pre-established difference between the ‘current’ approach (‘comparator) and
the ‘proposed’ approach (intervention’). Is this appropriate? If not, which elements of clinical
practice should be different in the before and after scenarios? It may be that no studies
directly compare different types of procedures or techniques for no reduction, closed
reduction, or open reduction in the different patient populations.
Clinical claim
The applicant wishes to bring MBS items for wrist fracture in line with current clinical practice, and to
more accurately reflect the more complexity injuries which are not currently included on the MBS. The
applicant claims that specific MBS items for intra-articular fracture of the distal radius, distal ulna, and
fracture of the ulna styloid, will improve the treatment of these more complex fractures. This will in
turn aid in the recovery and the long-term prognosis of the injury. In addition, existing MBS items do
not account for the increased complexity of current clinical practice and are ambiguous.
The accurate reduction and stable internal fixation of an intra-articular fracture of the distal radius
has been shown in clinical and experimental studies over the past 15 years to significantly improve
the outcome and reduce the morbidity following intra-articular fractures. The development of new
techniques and implants has, however, made this aim more complex and involved with increased
preoperative assessment, increased operating time and skill and more intense post-operative
management. This increased effort has led to better outcomes when compared to older more
traditional techniques, with fewer complications and hence fewer salvage procedures. The safety
when performing these procedures is equivalent to existing procedures.
The clinical benefits expected and reflected in published literature following accurate repair of intraarticular fractures are a more rapid return to work and activities of daily living, reduced risk for
subsequent degenerative changes in the joint and the need for salvage surgery and hence lost
function. These benefits are most obvious when seen in the target population of young active and
productive patients.
18
Comparative safety
versus comparator
Table 5: Classification of an intervention for determination of economic evaluation to be presented
Comparative effectiveness versus comparator
Superior
Non-inferior
Inferior
Net clinical benefit CEA/CUA
Superior
CEA/CUA
CEA/CUA
Neutral benefit
CEA/CUA*
Net harms
None^
Non-inferior
CEA/CUA
CEA/CUA*
None^
Net clinical benefit
CEA/CUA
Neutral benefit
CEA/CUA*
None^
None^
Net harms
None^
Abbreviations: CEA = cost-effectiveness analysis; CUA = cost-utility analysis
* May be reduced to cost-minimisation analysis. Cost-minimisation analysis should only be presented when the proposed
service has been indisputably demonstrated to be no worse than its main comparator(s) in terms of both effectiveness
and safety, so the difference between the service and the appropriate comparator can be reduced to a comparison of
costs. In most cases, there will be some uncertainty around such a conclusion (i.e., the conclusion is often not
indisputable). Therefore, when an assessment concludes that an intervention was no worse than a comparator, an
assessment of the uncertainty around this conclusion should be provided by presentation of cost-effectiveness and/or
cost-utility analyses.
^ No economic evaluation needs to be presented; MSAC is unlikely to recommend government subsidy of this intervention
Inferior
Outcomes and health care resources affected by introduction of proposed
intervention
Outcomes
The applicant did not provide specific outcomes. Suggested outcomes are shown below.
Primary effectiveness (from Handoll et al 2008):

Patient functional assessment (including quality of life)

Grip strength

Range of movement
Secondary effectiveness:

Residual soft tissue swelling

Pain

Return to work, school or study

Anatomical outcomes (radiological and imaging outcomes)

Duration of the surgical procedure

Resource use (hospital stay, number of outpatient visits, physiotherapy)
Adverse events:
Including but not limited to:

Surgical damage to blood vessels, tendons or nerves

Long-term pain

Clicking

Post-traumatic arthritis

Residual finger stiffness

Infection (pin or wire)

Soft tissue injury or additional fractures from external fixation

Swelling, dystrophy, vasomotor instability

Reflex sympathetic dystrophy

Malunion and loss of reduction
Question for consultation:
12. The outcomes have been informed from recent Cochrane reviews in this topic area. What
should the primary outcomes be? Are any changes needed to the effectiveness or safety
outcomes?
Health care resources
The internal fixation of intra-articular fractures of the distal radius and ulna and extra articular
fractures require the use of an assistant to help with exposure, reduction and fixation of these
fractures. An anaesthetist and standard theatre nursing staff are required. Because of the complexity
of these procedures and the need for accuracy, the use of intra-operative radiology is almost
mandatory. As part of the preoperative assessment of patients with intra-articular fractures a CT scan
would usually be required for accurate surgical planning. In the post-operative period it would be at
times necessary to use the skills of a qualified hand therapist to assist in the rehabilitation of the hand
and wrist after this injury and surgery.
The assessment of an intra-articular fracture and its characterisation is important for preoperative
planning to help determine the implant required and the surgical approach. Whilst plain radiographs
are adequate for an extra-articular fracture, a CT scan is usually required for accurate assessment
and planning for an intra-articular fracture.
The healthcare resources delivered with the comparator are similar for the new procedures with
perhaps less reliance on intra-operative radiology. At the moment it is unclear whether the resources
required for cast immobilisation and closed reduction is different in the current and proposed settings.
The healthcare resources have been grouped according to the following:

Comparator 1: Cast immobilisation (no reduction) current

Comparator 2: Closed reduction current

Comparator 3: Open reduction current

Intervention 1: Cast immobilisation (no reduction) proposed

Intervention 2: Closed reduction proposed

Intervention 3: Open reduction proposed
20
Issues to consider in terms of healthcare resources:

According to the applicant, treatment of intra-articular fractures would involve the addition of
a pre-operative CT scan, increased operating, anaesthetic and theatre time, the use of intraoperative radiology, together with perhaps a few more postoperative reviews and slightly
longer therapy and rehabilitation. The internal fixation devices are the same as currently used
for extra-articular fractures.

Closed reduction involves the manipulation of the fracture, therefore this procedure requires
anaesthesia.

For the purposes of the assessment, it is acknowledged that the resources used for each
comparator procedure is exactly the same as those for the paired intervention. Ligament
repair would be undertaken as a separate procedure and is not under review.

The applicant has advised that internal fixateurs would need to be removed at a rate of
approximately 10%, due to infection of if the device rubs against tendons. There would be no
difference in this rate between intra- and extra-articular fractures.
Table 6: List of resources to be considered in the economic analysis
Number of
Disaggregated unit cost
units of
resource
Setting in Proportion
per relevant
Provider of
which
of patients
Other
Private
time
Safety
Total
resource resource is receiving
MBS
govt
health
Patient
horizon per
nets*
cost
provided
resource
budget insurer
patient
receiving
resource
Resources provided to identify eligible population should intervention be made available as proposed
GP
GP rooms
- Consultation (15-20
min)
Radiologist
- X-ray
- Consultation (15-20 Specialist Consultant’s
rooms
min)
- CT scan
Resources provided to deliver comparator 1 – cast immobilisation
GP
GP rooms
- Cast immobilisation
- Cast immobilisation Specialist Consultant’s
rooms
- Post-cast X ray
- 1 week X ray
- 6 week X ray
Resources provided in association with comparator 1 (e.g., pre-treatments, co-administered interventions, resources used to monitor or in follow-up,
resources used in management of adverse events, resources used for treatment of down-stream conditions)
Hand
Rooms
- Rehabilitation
Therapist
- Revision surgery
- MBS 47930
Resources provided to deliver comparator 2 – closed reduction
GP
GP rooms
- Closed reduction
and cast
immobilisation
Specialist Consultant’s
- Closed reduction
rooms
and cast
immobilisation
- X-ray (check
accuracy of the
reduction once the
21
Setting in Proportion
Provider of
which
of patients
resource resource is receiving
provided
resource
Number of
units of
resource
per relevant
time
horizon per
patient
receiving
resource
Disaggregated unit cost
MBS
Safety
nets*
Other
govt
budget
Private
health
insurer
Patient
cast has been
applied)
- External fixation
device
- General
anaesthetic
- Local anaesthetic
- Post-cast X ray
- 1 week X ray
- 6 week X ray
- Additional X-ray
(due to swelling)
Resources provided in association with comparator 2
Hand
Rooms
- Rehabilitation
therapist
- Revision surgery
- MBS 47930
Resources provided to deliver comparator 3 – open reduction
- Hospital admission
(overnight)
Specialist Central or
- Surgery
regional
hospital
Assistant?
- Surgery (? X min)
Nurse
- Surgery
Anaesthetist
- Surgery
- Intra-operative Xray
- External fixation
devices
- Internal fixation
devices
- Synthetic bone
grafting
- Autologous bone
harvesting 47726
- Autologous bone
harvesting 47729
- Arthroscopy
- X-ray (check
accuracy of the
reduction once the
cast has been
applied)
- Post-cast X ray
- 1 week X ray
- 6 week X ray
- Additional X-ray
(due to swelling)
Resources provided in association with comparator 3
Hand
Rooms
- Rehabilitation
therapist
Nurse
- Suture removal
Specialist
- Removal of the
22
Total
cost
Setting in Proportion
Provider of
which
of patients
resource resource is receiving
provided
resource
Number of
units of
resource
per relevant
time
horizon per
patient
receiving
resource
Disaggregated unit cost
MBS
Safety
nets*
Other
govt
budget
Private
health
insurer
Patient
fracture fixation
- Revision surgery
- MBS 47930
Resources provided to deliver proposed intervention 1 – cast immobilisation
GP
GP rooms
- Cast immobilisation
- Cast immobilisation Specialist Consultant’s
rooms
- Post-cast X-ray
- 1 week X-ray
- 6 week X ray
Resources provided in association with proposed intervention 1
Hand
Rooms
- Rehabilitation
therapist
- Revision surgery
- MBS 47930
Resources provided to deliver proposed intervention 2 – closed reduction
- CT scan
GP
GP rooms
- Closed reduction
and cast
immobilisation
Specialist Consultant’s
- Closed reduction
rooms
and cast
immobilisation
- X-ray (check
accuracy of the
reduction once the
cast has been
applied)
- External fixation
device
- General
anaesthetic
- Local anaesthetic
- Post-cast X ray
- 1 week X ray
- 6 week X ray
- Additional X-ray
(due to swelling)
Resources provided in association with proposed intervention 2
Hand
Rooms
- Rehabilitation
therapist
- Revision surgery
- MBS 47930
Resources provided to deliver proposed intervention 3 – open reduction
- CT scan
- Hospital admission
(overnight)
Specialist
- Surgery (90-120
min)
Assistant
- Surgery
Nurse
- Surgery
Anaesthetist
- Surgery
- Intra-operative xray
23
Total
cost
Setting in Proportion
Provider of
which
of patients
resource resource is receiving
provided
resource
Number of
units of
resource
per relevant
time
horizon per
patient
receiving
resource
Disaggregated unit cost
MBS
Safety
nets*
Other
govt
budget
Private
health
insurer
Patient
- External fixation
devices
- Internal fixation
devices
- Synthetic bone
grafting
- Autologous bone
harvesting 47726
- Autologous bone
harvesting 47729
- Arthroscopy
- X-ray (check
accuracy of the
reduction once the
cast has been
applied)
- Post-cast X ray
- 1 week X ray
- 6 week X ray
- Additional X-ray
(due to swelling)
Resources provided in association with proposed intervention
Nurse
Rooms
- Suture removal
Hand
- Rehabilitation
therapist
Specialist
- Removal of the
fracture fixation
- Revision surgery
- MBS 47930

Clinical input and information from the assessment phase will be required to confirm the
proportion of units for the current and proposed procedures.

Other potentially relevant healthcare resources related to fracture repair such as day theatre
usage, attending nursing staff, potential follow-up procedures (plaster casts, analgesics) will
be common across paired procedures.
Question for consultation:
13. In terms of other associated resources (rehabilitation, physiotherapy, any other services, also
time off work) would these be similar for each paired comparator and intervention?
Proposed structure of economic evaluation (decision-analytic)
Due to the wide proposed changes to both new and existing items, there are three PICO tables to
account for all interventions and populations of interest (Table 7 to Table 9). Due to the difficulties in
24
Total
cost
accurately defining, both clinically and for the purposes of the review, the specific intervention and
comparator these will be kept broad.
There are three clinical procedures as interventions:

Cast immobilisation (no reduction)

Closed reduction, cast immobilisation

Open reduction, cast immobilisation
There are three clinical comparator procedures:

Cast immobilisation (no reduction)

Closed reduction, cast immobilisation

Open reduction, cast immobilisation
Table 7: Suggested summary of extended PICO to define research question that assessment will investigate: cast
immobilisation of fracture of the wrist
Patients
Intervention
Comparator
Patients with a fracture
of the wrist
Subgroups:
Fracture of the distal
radius or ulna not
involving the joint
surface
Fracture of the distal
radius or ulna involving
the joint surface,
undisplaced
Cast immobilisation
(this could be
undertaken by a GP or
by a specialist, possibly
after a CT scan)
Any other intervention.
NB there is likely to be
no comparator for this
population.
Outcomes to be
assessed
Primary outcomes:
Patient functional
assessment (including
quality of life)
Grip strength
Range of movement
Secondary outcomes:
TBC (please see above)
Safety outcomes:
All safety issues and
adverse events (please
see above).
Healthcare resources
to be considered
The healthcare
resources are similar in
both current and future
situations.
Table 8: Suggested summary of extended PICO to define research question that assessment will investigate:
closed reduction of fracture of wrist
Patients
Intervention
Comparator
Patients with a fracture
of the wrist
Subgroups:
Fracture of the distal
radius or ulna not
involving the joint
surface
Intra-articular fracture of
the distal radius
Intra-articular fracture of
the distal ulna
Traction and
manipulation, possible
use of external fixation;
cast immobilisation
(this could be
undertaken by a GP or
by a specialist with a
requirement for
anaesthesia, possibly
after a CT scan)
Any other conservative
intervention.
Outcomes to be
assessed
Primary outcomes:
Patient functional
assessment (including
quality of life)
Grip strength
Range of movement
Secondary outcomes:
TBC (please see above)
Safety outcomes:
All safety issues and
adverse events (please
see above).
Healthcare resources
to be considered
The healthcare
resources are similar in
both current and future
situations.
Additional resources
may include CT scan
and external fixation.
25
Table 9: Suggested summary of extended PICO to define research question that assessment will investigate: open
reduction of fracture of the wrist
Patients
Intervention
Comparator
Patients with a fracture
of the wrist
Subgroups:
Fracture of the distal
radius or ulna not
involving the joint
surface
Intra-articular fracture of
the distal radius
Intra-articular fracture of
the distal ulna
Fracture of the ulna
styloid with associated
DRUJ instability
Surgical intervention,
including:
- CT imaging
- Intra-operative
imaging
- Open reduction
- Internal fixation with
pins/screws/plates
- Any other intervention
required due to possible
DRUJ instability
Any other conservative
or surgical intervention.
Outcomes to be
assessed
Primary outcomes:
Patient functional
assessment (including
quality of life)
Grip strength
Range of movement
Secondary outcomes:
TBC (please see above)
Safety outcomes:
All safety issues and
adverse events (please
see above).
Healthcare resources
to be considered
The healthcare
resources are similar in
both current and future
situations.
Additional resources
may include CT scan,
external fixation,
internal fixation, intraoperative radiology.
Clinical research questions for public funding:
Due to the variety of wrist fractures and the variety of procedures under investigation, it is proposed
to separate the clinical questions according to the complexity of wrist fracture – whether it involves
the intra-articular surfaces or the ulna styloid, or if it does not involve the joint surface. The questions
should align to the populations as represented in the proposed MBS items.
PASC acknowledges that there may be no comparative evidence for some or all of the following
clinical questions. Safety, effectiveness and cost information may only be available in absolute terms,
obtained from case series and cohort studies. In this case, the applicability and methodological quality
of these level IV studies should be comprehensively explained.
Clinical research questions for wrist fractures, no reduction
a) What is the safety of current clinical practice cast immobilisation compared with alternative
methods for fractures of the wrist which do not require reduction?
b) What is the effectiveness of current clinical practice cast immobilisation compared with
alternative methods for fractures of the wrist which do not require reduction?
c) What is the cost-effectiveness of current clinical practice cast immobilisation compared with
alternative methods for fractures of the wrist which do not require reduction?
Separate for fractures of the distal radius or ulna not involving the joint surface, and fractures of the
distal radius or ulna involving the joint surface but undisplaced.
Clinical research questions for wrist fractures, closed reduction
d) What is the safety of current clinical practice closed reduction repair compared with
alternative methods for fractures of the wrist?
e) What is the effectiveness of current clinical practice closed reduction repair compared with
alternative methods for fractures of the wrist?
26
f)
What is the cost-effectiveness of current clinical practice closed reduction repair compared
with alternative methods for fractures of the wrist?
Separate for fracture of the distal radius or ulna not involving the joint surface; intra-articular fracture
of the distal radius with or without ulna; intra-articular fracture of the distal ulna.
Clinical research questions for wrist fractures, open reduction
g) What is the safety of current clinical practice open reduction repair compared with alternative
methods for fractures of the wrist?
h) What is the effectiveness of current clinical practice open reduction repair compared with
alternative methods for fractures of the wrist?
i)
What is the cost-effectiveness of current clinical practice open reduction repair compared with
alternative methods for fractures of the wrist?
Separate for fracture of the distal radius or ulna not involving the joint surface; intra-articular fracture
of the distal radius with or without ulna; intra-articular fracture of the distal ulna; fracture of the ulna
styloid with associated DRUJ instability.
In terms of fractures of the ulna styloid involving instability of the DRUJ, it is important to establish
the relationship between new item XXXX6 and the existing item 46345 which may currently be used
where reconstruction or stabilisation of the DRUJ is required.
Decision analytic diagram
The decision analytic diagram(s) need to account for the following variables:

Whether the fracture is intra-articular or extra-articular

Whether the fracture involves the distal ulna, the distal radius or the ulna styloid

Whether the procedure involves no reduction, closed reduction or open reduction

Whether the procedure involves external fixation, internal fixation, bone graft (autologous or
synthetic), detailed CT scan, intra-operative radiology

New and existing MBS numbers should be considered.
27
References
Abraham, M. K. and S. Scott (2010). "The emergent evaluation and treatment of hand and wrist
injuries." Emerg Med Clin N Am 28: 789-809.
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare 2012. Australia’s health 2012. Australia’s health series
no.13. Cat. no. AUS 156. Canberra: AIHW.
Bae, D. S. (2008). "Pediatric distal radius and forearm fractures." J Hand Surg Am 33(10): 1911-1923.
Brukner, P. (1998). "Stress fractures of the upper limb." Sports Med 26(6): 415-424.
Chung, K. C. and S. V. Spilson (2001). "The frequency and epidemiology of hand and forearm
fractures in the United States." J Hand Surg Am 26A: 908-915.
Handoll, H. H., J. S. Huntley, et al. (2008). "Different methods of external fixation for treating distal
radial fractures in adults." Cochrane Database Syst Rev(1): CD006522.
Handoll, H. H. and R. Madhok (2008e). "Conservative interventions for treating distal radial fractures
in adults." Cochrane Database Syst Rev(2): CD000314.
Handoll, H. H., R. Madhok, et al. (2006). "Rehabilitation for distal radial fractures in adults." Cochrane
Database Syst Rev(3): CD003324.
Kijima, Y. and S. F. Viegas (2009). "Wrist anatomy and biomechanics." J Hand Surg Am 34A: 15551563.
O'Neill, T. W., C. Cooper, et al. (2001). "Incidence of distal forearm fracture in British men and
women." Osteoporosis Int 12: 555-558.
Sanders, K. M., E. Seeman, et al. (1999). "Age- and gender-specific date of fractures in Australia: A
population-based study." Osteoporosis Int 10: 240-247.
Schmittenbecher, P. P. (2005). "What must we respect in articular fractures in childhood?" Injury 36:
S-A35-S-A43.
28
Appendix 1: Information from the MBS
Table 10: Current MBS item descriptors for relevant procedures on the wrist
MBS item MBS listing
Number
MBS claims
(Jun 2010 –
Jul 2011)a
46345
DISTAL RADIOULNAR JOINT, reconstruction or stabilisation of, including fusion, or
ligamentous arthroplasty and excision of distal ulna, when performed
Multiple Services Rule (Anaes.) (Assist.) Fee: $553.55 Benefit: 75% = $415.20
106
47348
CARPUS (excluding scaphoid), treatment of fracture of, not being a service to which item
47351 applies
Multiple Services Rule (Anaes.) Fee: $92.25 Benefit: 75% = $69.20 85% = $78.45
683
47351
CARPUS (excluding scaphoid), treatment of fracture of, by open reduction
Multiple Services Rule (Anaes.) Fee: $231.10 Benefit: 75% = $173.35 85% = $196.45
43
47354
CARPAL SCAPHOID, treatment of fracture of, not being a service to which item 47357
applies
Multiple Services Rule (Anaes.) Fee: $166.35 Benefit: 75% = $124.80 85% = $141.40
2,685
47357
CARPAL SCAPHOID, treatment of fracture of, by open reduction
Multiple Services Rule (Anaes.) (Assist.) Fee: $369.55 Benefit: 75% = $277.20 85% =
$314.15
324
47360
RADIUS OR ULNA, distal end of, treatment of fracture of, by cast immobilisation, not
being a service to which item 47363 or 47366 applies
Multiple Services Rule (Anaes.) Fee: $129.40 Benefit: 75% = $97.05 85% = $110.00
13,100
47363
RADIUS OR ULNA, distal end of, treatment of fracture of, by closed reduction
Multiple Services Rule (Anaes.) Fee: $193.90 Benefit: 75% = $145.45 85% = $164.85
1,027
47366
RADIUS OR ULNA, distal end of, treatment of fracture of, by open reduction
Multiple Services Rule (Anaes.) (Assist.) Fee: $258.70 Benefit: 75% = $194.05 85% =
$219.90
180
47369
RADIUS, distal end of, treatment of Colles', Smith's or Barton's fracture of, by cast
immobilisation, not being a service to which item 47372 or 47375 applies
Multiple Services Rule (Anaes.) Fee: $166.35 Benefit: 75% = $124.80 85% = $141.40
2,335
47372
RADIUS, distal end of, treatment of Colles', Smith's or Barton's fracture, by closed
reduction
Multiple Services Rule (Anaes.) Fee: $277.10 Benefit: 75% = $207.85 85% = $235.55
1,398
47375
RADIUS, distal end of, treatment of Colles', Smith's or Barton's fracture of, by open
reduction
Multiple Services Rule (Anaes.) (Assist.) Fee: $369.55 Benefit: 75% = $277.20
2,857
29
MBS item MBS listing
Number
MBS claims
(Jun 2010 –
Jul 2011)a
47726
BONE GRAFT, harvesting of, via separate incision, in conjunction with another service autogenous - small quantity
Multiple Services Rule (Anaes.) Fee: $138.60 Benefit: 75% = $103.95
983
47729
BONE GRAFT, harvesting of, via separate incision, in conjunction with another service autogenous - large quantity
Multiple Services Rule (Anaes.) Fee: $231.10 Benefit: 75% = $173.35
2,168
47930
PLATE, ROD OR NAIL AND ASSOCIATED WIRES, PINS OR SCREWS, 1 or more of,
all of which were inserted for internal fixation purposes, removal of, not being a service
associated with a service to which item 47924 or 47927 applies - per bone
Multiple Services Rule (Anaes.) (Assist.) Fee: $258.70 Benefit: 75% = $194.05
6,664
49215
WRIST, reconstruction of, including repair of single or multiple ligaments or capsules,
including associated arthrotomy
Multiple Services Rule (Anaes.) (Assist.) Fee: $637.60 Benefit: 75% = $478.20
(See para T8.120 of explanatory notes to this Category)
677
50106
JOINT, stabilisation of, involving 1 or more of: repair of capsule, repair of ligament or
internal fixation, not being a service to which another item in this Group applies
Multiple Services Rule (Anaes.) (Assist.) Fee: $461.90 Benefit: 75% = $346.45
3,869
50508
RADIUS, distal end of, with open growth plate, treatment of Colles', Smith's or Barton's
fracture, by closed reduction
Multiple Services Rule (Anaes.) Fee: $387.90 Benefit: 75% = $290.95 85% = $329.75
(See para T8.122, T8.123 of explanatory notes to this Category)
613
50512
RADIUS, distal end of, with open growth plate, treatment of Colles', Smith's or Barton's
fracture of, by open reduction
Multiple Services Rule (Anaes.) (Assist.) Fee: $517.45 Benefit: 75% = $388.10
(See para T8.122, T8.123 of explanatory notes to this Category)
83
56619
Category 5 - DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING SERVICES
COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY - scan of extremities, 1 or more regions without
intravenous contrast medium, payable once only whether 1 or more attendances are
required to complete the service (R) (K) (Anaes.)
Bulk bill incentive Fee: $220.00 Benefit: 75% = $165.00 85% = $187.00
(See para DIQ of explanatory notes to this Category)
56625
Category 5 - DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING SERVICES
COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY - scan of extremities, 1 or more regions with intravenous
contrast medium and with any scans of extremities prior to intravenous contrast injection,
when undertaken; only 1 benefit is payable whether 1 or more attendances are required
to complete the service (R) (K) (Anaes.)
Bulk bill incentive Fee: $334.65 Benefit: 75% = $251.00 85% = $284.50
(See para DIQ of explanatory notes to this Category)
2,532
55800
Category 5 - DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING SERVICES
HAND OR WRIST, 1 or both sides, ultrasound scan of, where:
(a) the service is not associated with a service to which an item in Subgroups 2 or 3 of
this Group applies; and
(b) the referring practitioner is not a member of a group of practitioners of which the
providing practitioner is a member (R)
Bulk bill incentive Fee: $109.10 Benefit: 75% = $81.85 85% = $92.75
(See para DIQ of explanatory notes to this Category)
88,836
57506
Category 5 - DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING SERVICES
HAND, WRIST, FOREARM, ELBOW OR HUMERUS (NR)
Bulk bill incentive Fee: $29.75 Benefit: 75% = $22.35 85% = $25.30
(See para DIQ of explanatory notes to this Category)
17,644
57509
Category 5 - DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING SERVICES
HAND, WRIST, FOREARM, ELBOW OR HUMERUS (R)
Bulk bill incentive Fee: $39.75 Benefit: 75% = $29.85 85% = $33.80
(See para DIQ of explanatory notes to this Category)
736,604
101,347
30
MBS item MBS listing
Number
MBS claims
(Jun 2010 –
Jul 2011)a
57512
Category 5 - DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING SERVICES
HAND AND WRIST OR HAND, WRIST AND FOREARM OR FOREARM AND ELBOW
OR ELBOW AND HUMERUS (NR)
Bulk bill incentive Fee: $40.50 Benefit: 75% = $30.40 85% = $34.45
(See para DIQ of explanatory notes to this Category)
2,986
57515
Category 5 - DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING SERVICES
HAND AND WRIST OR HAND, WRIST AND FOREARM OR FOREARM AND ELBOW
OR ELBOW AND HUMERUS (R)
Bulk bill incentive Fee: $54.00 Benefit: 75% = $40.50 85% = $45.90
(See para DIQ of explanatory notes to this Category)
81,103
63337
Category 5 - DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING SERVICES
- derangement of wrist and/or hand or its supporting structures (R) (Contrast)
Bulk bill incentive (Anaes.) Fee: $448.00 Benefit: 75% = $336.00 85% = $380.80
(See para DIQ of explanatory notes to this Category)
10,233
MBS: Medicare Benefits Schedule
a Claims data retrieved June 26 2012 from: https://www.medicareaustralia.gov.au/statistics/mbs_item.shtml
Figure 3: Services for MBS item 47360 in 2010-2011 shown according to age and gender
8000
Number of services, 47360
7000
6000
5000
4000
Female
3000
Male
Total
2000
1000
0
0 to 4 5 to 15 to 25 to 35 to 45 to 55 to 65 to 75 to 85+
14
24
34
44
54
64
74
84
Age range
31
Figure 4: Services for MBS item 47363 in 2010-2011 shown according to age and gender
500
Number of services, 47363
450
400
350
300
250
Female
200
Male
150
Total
100
50
0
0 to 4 5 to 15 to 25 to 35 to 45 to 55 to 65 to 75 to 85+
14
24
34
44
54
64
74
84
Age range
Figure 5: Services for MBS item 47366 in 2010-2011 shown according to age and gender
Number of services, 47366
35
30
25
20
Female
15
Male
10
Total
5
0
0 to 4 5 to 14 15 to 25 to 35 to 45 to 55 to 65 to 75 to
24
34
44
54
64
74
84
85+
Age range
32
Figure 6: Services for MBS item 47369 in 2010-2011 shown according to age and gender
1000
Number of services, 47369
900
800
700
600
500
Female
400
Male
300
Total
200
100
0
0 to 4 5 to 15 to 25 to 35 to 45 to 55 to 65 to 75 to 85+
14
24
34
44
54
64
74
84
Age range
Figure 7: Services for MBS item 47372 in 2010-2011 shown according to age and gender
Number of services, 47372
250
200
150
Female
100
Male
Total
50
0
0 to 4 5 to 15 to 25 to 35 to 45 to 55 to 65 to 75 to 85+
14
24
34
44
54
64
74
84
Age range
33
Figure 8: Services for MBS item 47375 in 2010-2011 shown according to age and gender
Number of services, 47375
800
700
600
500
400
Female
300
Male
200
Total
100
0
0 to 4 5 to 15 to 25 to 35 to 45 to 55 to 65 to 75 to 85+
14
24
34
44
54
64
74
84
Age range
34
Appendix 2: Information from the AIHW
Table 11: AIHW separation statistics by principal diagnosis, fracture at wrist and hand level (S62)
ICD-10AM
S62
Description
AIHW separations AIHW separations
2008-09a
2009-10a
Fracture at wrist and hand level
21,301
21,796
S62.0
Fracture of navicular (scaphoid) bone of hand
1,229
1,185
S62.1
Fracture of other carpal bone(s)
290
301
S62.2
Fracture of first metacarpal bone
1,458
1,487
S62.3
Fracture of other metacarpal bone
6,305
6,268
S62.4
Multiple fractures of metacarpal bones
525
546
S62.5
Fracture of thumb
1,899
2,001
S62.6
Fracture of other finger
9,064
9,522
S62.7
Multiple fractures of fingers
139
140
S62.8
Fracture of other and unspecified parts of wrist and hand
392
346
AIHW: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare
ICD: International Classification of Diseases
a Separation data retrieved June 26 2012 from: http://www.aihw.gov.au/hospitals-data/
Table 12: AIHW separation statistics by principal diagnosis, fracture of forearm (S52)
ICD-10AM
S52
Description
AIHW separations AIHW separations
2008-09a
2009-10a
Fracture of forearm
37,222
37,980
S52.0
Fracture of upper end of ulna
2,258
2,239
S52.1
Fracture of upper end of radius
1,816
1,873
S52.2
Fracture of shaft of ulna
980
942
S52.3
Fracture of shaft of radius
1,423
1,343
S52.4
Fracture of shafts of both radius and ulna
3,119
3,196
S52.5
Fracture of lower end of radius
22,253
22,887
S52.6
Fracture of lower end of both radius and ulna
4,309b
4,432b
S52.7
Multiple fractures of forearm
469
518
S52.8
Fracture of other parts of forearm
475
487
S52.9
Fracture of forearm, part unspecified
93
63
AIHW: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare
ICD: International Classification of Diseases
a Separation data retrieved June 26 2012 from: http://www.aihw.gov.au/hospitals-data/
b S52.6 is not specified further
35
Table 13: AIHW separation statistics by principal diagnosis, fracture of lower end of radius (S52.5)
ICD-10AM
Description
AIHW separations AIHW separations
2008-09a
2009-10a
S52.5
Fracture of lower end of radius
22,253
22,887
S52.50
Fracture of lower end of radius, unspecified
7,076
7,350
S52.51
Fracture of lower end of radius with dorsal angulation
11,392
11,782
S52.52
Fracture of lower end of radius with volar angulation
1,182
1,083
S52.53
Fracture of lower end of radius with volar angulation and intra-articular fracture
S52.59
Other and multiple fractures of lower end of radius
533
540
2,070
2,132
AIHW: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare
ICD: International Classification of Diseases
a Separation data retrieved June 26 2012 from: http://www.aihw.gov.au/hospitals-data/
Table 14: AIHW separation statistics by procedure, procedures on musculoskeletal system (XV)
ICD block Description
number
1421-1438 Forearm
AIHW separations AIHW separations
2008-09a
2009-10a
40,709
42,537
1421
Immobilisation of fracture of shaft and distal radius or ulna
409
459
1423
Incision of fascia of forearm
328
294
1424
Incision of radius or ulna
977
933
1425
Other incision procedures on forearm
192
191
1426
Excision procedures on forearm
1,391
1,432
1427
Closed reduction of fracture of radius
16,702
16,860
1428
Closed reduction of fracture of ulna or olecranon
2,635
3,356
1429
Open reduction of fracture of radius
9,775
10,486
1430
Open reduction of fracture of ulna or olecranon
3,258
3,403
1431
Reduction of fracture of shaft of radius and ulna
3,297
3,300
1432
Open reduction of fracture of shaft of radius or ulna with dislocation
185
181
1433
Reduction of dislocation of shaft of radius or ulna
118
107
1434
Reduction of separated epiphysis of radius or ulna
1435
Bone graft to forearm
1436
1438
1
6
1,433
1,520
Other repair procedures on forearm
4
4
Other procedures on forearm
4
5
AIHW: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare
ICD: International Classification of Diseases
a Separation data retrieved June 26 2012 from: http://www.aihw.gov.au/hospitals-data/
36
Table 15: AIHW separation statistics by procedure, 1428 closed reduction of fracture of ulna or olecranon
ICD
procedure
code
Description
AIHW separations AIHW separations
2008-09a
2009-10a
47363-01
Closed reduction of fracture of distal ulna
2,023
2,713
47363-03
Closed reduction of fracture of distal ulna with internal fixation
131
181
47381-01
Closed reduction of fracture of shaft of ulna
192
170
47381-03
Closed reduction of fracture of shaft of ulna with internal fixation
32
29
47385-01
Closed reduction of fracture of shaft of ulna with dislocation
74
61
47385-03
Closed reduction of fracture of shaft of ulna with dislocation and internal
fixation
10
11
47396-00
Closed reduction of fracture of olecranon
73
88
47396-01
Closed reduction of fracture of olecranon with internal fixation
100
103
AIHW: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare
ICD: International Classification of Diseases
a Separation data retrieved June 26 2012 from: http://www.aihw.gov.au/hospitals-data/
Table 16: AIHW separation statistics by procedure, 1430 open reduction of fracture of ulna or olecranon
ICD
procedure
number
Description
AIHW separations AIHW separations
2008-09a
2009-10a
47366-01
Open reduction of fracture of distal ulna
40
65
47366-03
Open reduction of fracture of distal ulna with internal fixation
940
1,075
47384-01
Open reduction of fracture of shaft of ulna
25
25
47384-03
Open reduction of fracture of shaft of ulna with internal fixation
577
584
47399-00
Open reduction of fracture of olecranon
25
24
47399-01
Open reduction of fracture of olecranon with internal fixation
1,558
1,536
47402-00
Open reduction of fracture of olecranon with partial ostectomy of olecranon
fragment
12
16
47402-01
Open reduction of fracture of olecranon with partial ostectomy of olecranon
fragment and internal fixation
81
78
AIHW: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare
ICD: International Classification of Diseases
a Separation data retrieved June 26 2012 from: http://www.aihw.gov.au/hospitals-data/
37
Table 17: AIHW separation statistics by procedure, 1427 closed reduction of fracture of radius
ICD
procedure
code
Description
AIHW separations AIHW separations
2008-09a
2009-10a
47363-00
Closed reduction of fracture of distal radius
13,557
13,892
47363-02
Closed reduction of fracture of distal radius with internal fixation
2,280
2,058
47381-00
Closed reduction of fracture of shaft of radius
435
468
47381-02
Closed reduction of fracture of shaft of radius with internal fixation
39
32
47385-00
Closed reduction of fracture of shaft of radius with dislocation
34
52
47385-02
Closed reduction of fracture of shaft of radius with dislocation and internal
fixation
7
6
47405-00
Closed reduction of fracture of radial head or neck
283
284
47405-01
Closed reduction of fracture of radial head or neck with internal fixation
67
68
AIHW: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare
ICD: International Classification of Diseases
a Separation data retrieved June 26 2012 from: http://www.aihw.gov.au/hospitals-data/
Table 18: AIHW separation statistics by procedure, 1429 open reduction of fracture of radius
ICD
procedure
number
Description
AIHW separations AIHW separations
2008-09a
2009-10a
47366-00
Open reduction of fracture of distal radius
47366-02
Open reduction of fracture of distal radius with internal fixation
47384-00
Open reduction of fracture of shaft of radius
40
27
47384-02
Open reduction of fracture of shaft of radius with internal fixation
465
504
47408-00
Open reduction of fracture of radial head or neck
54
49
47408-01
Open reduction of fracture of radial head or neck with internal fixation
770
807
137
98
8,309
9,001
AIHW: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare
ICD: International Classification of Diseases
a Separation data retrieved June 26 2012 from: http://www.aihw.gov.au/hospitals-data/
38